NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IRINA COLLIER, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PRESIDENT OF STANFORD, WEBMASTER OF 

STANFORD, UCB CHANCELLOR, COLLIERGARBER FAMILY, MARC TESSRER-LAVIGNE, 

Webmaster of Stanford, CHARLES WADE 

COLLIER, CHANCELLOR CHRIST, PRESIDENT 

DRAKE,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2023-1185

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:22-cv-05375-YGR, 

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The court dismisses Irina Collier’s appeal and related

request for a writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 23-1185 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 12/30/2022
2 COLLIER v. PRESIDENT OF STANFORD

Ms. Collier filed a complaint at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against 

the above-captioned defendants for alleged civil rights violations and family law matters. On September 30, 2022, a 

magistrate judge, screening the case under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915, recommended that the case be dismissed. Among 

other filings, Ms. Collier filed a notice of appeal to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On 

October 21, 2022, the Ninth Circuit dismissed her appeal 

as premature. Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 22-16529, ECF 

No. 4. On November 16, 2022, Ms. Collier filed a notice of 

appeal with this court.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal and Ms. Collier’s 

related request for mandamus relief. This court does not 

have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Ninth Circuit. 

And while this court does have jurisdiction over certain final decisions of federal district courts—namely, those arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); or 

under § 1295(a)(4)(C); or those involving monetary claims

against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in 

amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(2)—Ms. Collier has asserted no claims within 

this court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction.* 

* We note that this is now our fourth decision this 

year explaining to Ms. Collier the statutory limits of this 

court’s jurisdiction over her civil matters arising from the 

Northern District of California. See In re Collier, No. 2022-

165, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2022) (dismissing request for mandamus relief for lack of jurisdiction); Collier 

v. Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, No. 2022-1442, ECF No. 18 (Fed. 

Cir. June 29, 2022) (dismissing request for mandamus relief for lack of jurisdiction); Collier v. Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, No. 2022-1442, ECF No. 15 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) 

(dismissing False Claims Act appeal for lack of 

Case: 23-1185 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 12/30/2022
COLLIER v. PRESIDENT OF STANFORD 3

This court can, under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer an appeal to the regional circuit where the appeal “could have 

been brought at the time it was filed or noticed.” However, 

the Ninth Circuit has already held that Ms. Collier cannot 

yet bring her premature appeal, and we agree, so we dismiss this appeal rather than transfer it. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Any pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 December 30, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

jurisdiction). Ms. Collier is thus on notice and expected not 

to seek this court’s review of cases outside of that limited 

subject matter jurisdiction, as explained to Ms. Collier in 

those orders as well as this one. 

Case: 23-1185 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 12/30/2022